U.S. Open

[Antitrust32]

Okay I'll give you one of those.. 2002 US Open at Bethpage he shot 2 over on the final round "to hold on to win" which was really bullshit anyway because 2 over was still a good score to post that day... only 3 players the whole day posted an under par score that day... so nevermind it really wasnt "holding on to win" a 72 was a good score.



The 99' PGA when he shot "72" at Medinah Country Club.. well that was even par score (par 72) so it was not at all "holding on to win"


not really going to address the "70" at the Andrews in 2005 because that is a great golf score. no way was it a "holding on to win"


So basically, if you look at the facts instead of just taking numbers as numbers when you dont know what they mean, the ONLY time Tiger "held on to win" was with no ACL and two fractures.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Okay I'll give you one of those.. 2002 US Open at Bethpage he shot 2 over on the final round "to hold on to win" which was really bullshit anyway because 2 over was still a good score to post that day... only 3 players the whole day posted an under par score that day... so nevermind it really wasnt "holding on to win" a 72 was a good score.


The 99' PGA when he shot "72" at Medinah Country Club.. well that was even par score (par 72) so it was not at all "holding on to win"


not really going to address the "70" at the Andrews in 2005 because that is a great golf score. no way was it a "holding on to win"


So basically, if you look at the facts instead of just taking numbers as numbers when you dont know what they mean, the ONLY time Tiger "held on to win" was with no ACL and two fractures.

The 2002 US Open he had a 4 stroke lead going into the final round. He was never looked in the eye and Phil actually was one of the 3 that went under par that day. Certainly a 72 was a good score on that day but it doesn't fit in Gales analogy that he was looked in the eye.

1999 is a pretty terrible choice, of the 15 people that were tied for 10th or higher only two of them shot worse than Tiger's 72 that day. So yes, that was one he held on to win.

You are correct on the 70 being a pretty good score at St Andrews that day. I excluded that one cause he had two strokes going in on Olazabal and three strokes on Montgomerie and Goosen. After further review that one warrants more consideration as that wasn't that many strokes on some pretty good players.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

The 2002 US Open he had a 4 stroke lead going into the final round. He was never looked in the eye and Phil actually was one of the 3 that went under par that day. Certainly a 72 was a good score on that day but it doesn't fit in Gales analogy that he was looked in the eye.

1999 is a pretty terrible choice, of the 15 people that were tied for 10th or higher only two of them shot worse than Tiger's 72 that day. So yes, that was one he held on to win.

You are correct on the 70 being a pretty good score at St Andrews that day. I excluded that one cause he had two strokes going in on Olazabal and three strokes on Montgomerie and Goosen. After further review that one warrants more consideration as that wasn't that many strokes on some pretty good players.

I disagree about 1999. to me "holding on to win" is something that Glover did today. shot 3 over par. I can never believe that shooting even par on a Sunday in a major is "holding on to win".

I mean, I guess we can look at his incredible match play record as being "looked in the eye" and 3 US Amatures and 3 US Junior Amatures as being "looked in the eye" as the are all match play events.

Back in the good old days players would count US Amatures as Majors because there wasnt enough money in golf to go pro. A lot of people say Jack has 20 majors because he won two US Amatures.

Unfortunatly, unlike Jack's years where some of his competitors actually had/have a pair of balls under their dick, when Tiger "looks someone in the eye" the guys pisses/shits his pants and cries. Its kinda sad.

[gales0678]

i still contend that tiger's greatest win as a pro was the 2000 pga over bob may

bob may was not a top player , but that week in valhalla he played perhaps the greatest 4 rounds of anyone in any major and not win

i think bob may had 3 rounds of 66 in that tournament , he took the lead away from tiger at one point in the back nine , the putt he made on 18 was simply amazing , tiger had to make about an 8 footer to force a playoff - i honestly don't think anyone else in the world would have made that putt with all the pressure on the line , through in the fact that he was trying to tie ben hogan as the only player to win 3 majors in the year and the pressure on the putt is multiplie 100 fold - and he poured it right in

if he didn't make that putt and lost to bob may who knows what would have happened o him after that - but he didn't miss

the analogy that he has to go toe to toe with another top player is ridiculous , any 1 of these guys can string 4 great rounds together

i do agreee with scott that the public would like to see a comeback from behind win from 5/6 back , if he does that he will become a legend, but, that day against bob may was simply un-real , he willed himself to victory there against a guy who played arguably as good for 4 rounds as anyone else ever did in a pga , with the exception of tiger of course

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

i still contend that tiger's greatest win as a pro was the 2000 pga over bob may

bob may was not a top player , but that week in valhalla he played perhaps the greatest 4 rounds of anyone in any major and not win

i think bob may had 3 rounds of 66 in that tournament , he took the lead away from tiger at one point in the back nine , the putt he made on 18 was simply amazing , tiger had to make about an 8 footer to force a playoff - i honestly don't think anyone else in the world would have made that putt with all the pressure on the line , through in the fact that he was trying to tie ben hogan as the only player to win 3 majors in the year and the pressure on the putt is multiplie 100 fold - and he poured it right in

if he didn't make that putt and lost to bob may who knows what would have happened o him after that - but he didn't miss

the analogy that he has to go toe to toe with another top player is ridiculous , any 1 of these guys can string 4 great rounds together

i do agreee with scott that the public would like to see a comeback from behind win from 5/6 back , if he does that he will become a legend, but, that day against bob may was simply un-real , he willed himself to victory there against a guy who played arguably as good for 4 rounds as anyone else ever did in a pga , with the exception of tiger of course

thats how last year was to me also gales. That 12 footer he made on 18 to force a playoff was as clutch as it gets. I know Rocco isnt some big shot, but he's a pro golfer on the PGA tour and Tiger had ONE leg!

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

thats how last year was to me also gales. That 12 footer he made on 18 to force a playoff was as clutch as it gets. I know Rocco isnt some big shot, but he's a pro golfer on the PGA tour and Tiger had ONE leg!

the difference between may and rocco was that tiger played with may in the final round , rocco was ahead of him on sunday

the woods / may show down has yet to be topped in my mind, they matched each other shot for shot on the back 9